Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 451

control, N = 221

treatment, N = 231

p-value2

age

45

50.53 ± 12.60 (25 - 72)

49.85 ± 12.81 (25 - 72)

51.19 ± 12.65 (32 - 72)

0.725

gender

45

0.463

f

29 (64%)

13 (59%)

16 (70%)

m

16 (36%)

9 (41%)

7 (30%)

occupation

45

0.978

day_training

1 (2.2%)

1 (4.5%)

0 (0%)

full_time

5 (11%)

3 (14%)

2 (8.7%)

homemaker

2 (4.4%)

1 (4.5%)

1 (4.3%)

other

2 (4.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (8.7%)

part_time

8 (18%)

4 (18%)

4 (17%)

retired

13 (29%)

6 (27%)

7 (30%)

self_employ

2 (4.4%)

1 (4.5%)

1 (4.3%)

t_and_e

2 (4.4%)

1 (4.5%)

1 (4.3%)

unemploy

10 (22%)

5 (23%)

5 (22%)

marital

45

0.893

divore

5 (11%)

3 (14%)

2 (8.7%)

married

8 (18%)

3 (14%)

5 (22%)

none

26 (58%)

13 (59%)

13 (57%)

seperation

3 (6.7%)

2 (9.1%)

1 (4.3%)

widow

3 (6.7%)

1 (4.5%)

2 (8.7%)

edu

45

0.679

bachelor

13 (29%)

5 (23%)

8 (35%)

diploma

7 (16%)

5 (23%)

2 (8.7%)

hd_ad

2 (4.4%)

1 (4.5%)

1 (4.3%)

postgraduate

4 (8.9%)

2 (9.1%)

2 (8.7%)

primary

4 (8.9%)

1 (4.5%)

3 (13%)

secondary_1_3

3 (6.7%)

1 (4.5%)

2 (8.7%)

secondary_4_5

11 (24%)

7 (32%)

4 (17%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (4.3%)

fam_income

45

0.797

10001_12000

3 (6.7%)

1 (4.5%)

2 (8.7%)

12001_14000

2 (4.4%)

2 (9.1%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

4 (8.9%)

1 (4.5%)

3 (13%)

16001_18000

2 (4.4%)

1 (4.5%)

1 (4.3%)

18001_20000

1 (2.2%)

1 (4.5%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (20%)

6 (27%)

3 (13%)

2001_4000

5 (11%)

2 (9.1%)

3 (13%)

4001_6000

7 (16%)

3 (14%)

4 (17%)

6001_8000

5 (11%)

3 (14%)

2 (8.7%)

8001_10000

3 (6.7%)

1 (4.5%)

2 (8.7%)

below_2000

4 (8.9%)

1 (4.5%)

3 (13%)

medication

45

38 (84%)

18 (82%)

20 (87%)

0.699

onset_duration

45

16.04 ± 12.52 (0 - 56)

17.24 ± 14.47 (1 - 56)

14.89 ± 10.53 (0 - 35)

0.535

onset_age

45

34.50 ± 12.38 (15 - 62)

32.61 ± 11.19 (16 - 55)

36.31 ± 13.43 (15 - 62)

0.322

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 451

control, N = 221

treatment, N = 231

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

45

3.44 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.41 ± 1.30 (1 - 5)

3.48 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

0.854

recovery_stage_b

45

18.42 ± 2.62 (9 - 23)

18.50 ± 2.87 (9 - 23)

18.35 ± 2.42 (14 - 23)

0.848

ras_confidence

45

30.80 ± 4.70 (19 - 40)

30.41 ± 4.52 (19 - 40)

31.17 ± 4.94 (22 - 39)

0.591

ras_willingness

45

12.31 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

12.36 ± 1.81 (9 - 15)

12.26 ± 2.26 (7 - 15)

0.868

ras_goal

45

17.69 ± 3.01 (12 - 24)

17.64 ± 3.03 (12 - 23)

17.74 ± 3.06 (12 - 24)

0.911

ras_reliance

45

13.51 ± 3.06 (8 - 20)

13.32 ± 2.77 (8 - 18)

13.70 ± 3.36 (8 - 20)

0.684

ras_domination

45

10.20 ± 2.38 (3 - 15)

10.95 ± 1.68 (8 - 15)

9.48 ± 2.74 (3 - 14)

0.036

symptom

45

29.38 ± 10.10 (14 - 56)

28.41 ± 8.67 (14 - 45)

30.30 ± 11.41 (15 - 56)

0.535

slof_work

45

22.89 ± 4.93 (10 - 30)

23.36 ± 4.69 (15 - 30)

22.43 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)

0.534

slof_relationship

45

26.36 ± 5.68 (11 - 35)

26.95 ± 5.74 (15 - 35)

25.78 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)

0.495

satisfaction

45

21.18 ± 6.74 (5 - 30)

19.95 ± 6.56 (5 - 29)

22.35 ± 6.83 (5 - 30)

0.238

mhc_emotional

45

11.58 ± 3.60 (4 - 18)

11.36 ± 3.08 (6 - 17)

11.78 ± 4.09 (4 - 18)

0.701

mhc_social

45

15.16 ± 4.98 (6 - 26)

15.68 ± 5.00 (8 - 26)

14.65 ± 5.01 (6 - 23)

0.494

mhc_psychological

45

22.31 ± 6.26 (6 - 36)

21.95 ± 6.29 (10 - 33)

22.65 ± 6.35 (6 - 36)

0.713

resilisnce

45

17.11 ± 4.69 (6 - 25)

17.14 ± 4.54 (6 - 24)

17.09 ± 4.93 (7 - 25)

0.972

social_provision

45

13.71 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)

13.50 ± 2.91 (8 - 20)

13.91 ± 3.55 (5 - 19)

0.672

els_value_living

45

17.18 ± 2.98 (5 - 23)

16.95 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)

17.39 ± 3.63 (5 - 23)

0.629

els_life_fulfill

45

13.18 ± 3.35 (4 - 18)

12.36 ± 3.39 (5 - 17)

13.96 ± 3.18 (4 - 18)

0.111

els

45

30.36 ± 5.69 (9 - 40)

29.32 ± 4.74 (20 - 36)

31.35 ± 6.42 (9 - 40)

0.236

social_connect

45

27.13 ± 10.07 (8 - 48)

27.18 ± 9.09 (8 - 45)

27.09 ± 11.14 (8 - 48)

0.975

shs_agency

45

14.36 ± 4.78 (3 - 20)

13.91 ± 4.42 (3 - 20)

14.78 ± 5.16 (3 - 20)

0.546

shs_pathway

45

16.82 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)

16.45 ± 3.39 (9 - 22)

17.17 ± 4.06 (4 - 22)

0.523

shs

45

31.18 ± 7.86 (7 - 42)

30.36 ± 7.37 (16 - 41)

31.96 ± 8.39 (7 - 42)

0.503

esteem

45

12.53 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)

12.73 ± 1.08 (10 - 14)

12.35 ± 1.37 (10 - 15)

0.309

mlq_search

45

15.27 ± 3.32 (3 - 21)

15.27 ± 3.25 (6 - 21)

15.26 ± 3.45 (3 - 20)

0.991

mlq_presence

45

13.73 ± 3.96 (3 - 21)

14.14 ± 2.92 (6 - 19)

13.35 ± 4.79 (3 - 21)

0.511

mlq

45

29.00 ± 6.63 (6 - 41)

29.41 ± 5.98 (12 - 40)

28.61 ± 7.32 (6 - 41)

0.691

empower

45

20.07 ± 4.28 (6 - 28)

20.27 ± 3.68 (11 - 24)

19.87 ± 4.86 (6 - 28)

0.756

ismi_resistance

45

14.98 ± 2.79 (5 - 20)

15.14 ± 2.27 (12 - 19)

14.83 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

0.714

ismi_discrimation

45

11.22 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)

11.91 ± 2.96 (5 - 17)

10.57 ± 3.20 (5 - 19)

0.151

sss_affective

45

9.47 ± 4.19 (3 - 18)

9.86 ± 3.40 (3 - 15)

9.09 ± 4.87 (3 - 18)

0.540

sss_behavior

45

9.44 ± 4.38 (3 - 18)

10.00 ± 4.23 (3 - 18)

8.91 ± 4.55 (3 - 18)

0.412

sss_cognitive

45

7.82 ± 3.98 (3 - 18)

7.41 ± 3.55 (3 - 15)

8.22 ± 4.39 (3 - 18)

0.502

sss

45

26.73 ± 11.65 (9 - 54)

27.27 ± 9.79 (9 - 44)

26.22 ± 13.40 (9 - 54)

0.765

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.41

0.253

2.91, 3.91

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.069

0.355

-0.626, 0.764

0.846

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.686

0.465

-0.225, 1.60

0.154

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.481

0.710

-1.87, 0.910

0.504

Pseudo R square

0.033

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.5

0.559

17.4, 19.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.152

0.782

-1.68, 1.38

0.847

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.146

0.589

-1.30, 1.01

0.809

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.669

0.909

-1.11, 2.45

0.478

Pseudo R square

0.003

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.4

0.994

28.5, 32.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.765

1.391

-1.96, 3.49

0.585

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.588

0.690

-0.765, 1.94

0.413

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.062

1.068

-2.03, 2.15

0.955

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.4

0.431

11.5, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.103

0.603

-1.28, 1.08

0.865

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.443

0.526

-1.47, 0.587

0.414

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.487

0.811

-1.10, 2.08

0.558

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.650

16.4, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.103

0.909

-1.68, 1.88

0.910

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.114

0.662

-1.18, 1.41

0.866

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.903

1.022

-2.91, 1.10

0.395

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.3

0.651

12.0, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.377

0.911

-1.41, 2.16

0.681

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.132

0.407

-0.665, 0.928

0.752

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.526

0.629

-0.708, 1.76

0.421

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_domination

(Intercept)

11.0

0.490

10.0, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.48

0.685

-2.82, -0.134

0.036

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.12

0.833

-2.75, 0.516

0.194

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.56

1.277

-0.944, 4.06

0.235

Pseudo R square

0.080

symptom

(Intercept)

28.4

2.195

24.1, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.90

3.070

-4.12, 7.91

0.540

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.10

1.779

-4.59, 2.39

0.549

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.95

2.751

-3.44, 7.34

0.493

Pseudo R square

0.014

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.4

1.059

21.3, 25.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.929

1.482

-3.83, 1.98

0.534

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.85

0.579

-2.98, -0.711

0.009

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.892

0.896

-0.864, 2.65

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.020

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

27.0

1.229

24.5, 29.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.17

1.718

-4.54, 2.20

0.499

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.51

1.043

-3.55, 0.533

0.174

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.91

1.612

-1.25, 5.07

0.259

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.0

1.402

17.2, 22.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.39

1.961

-1.45, 6.24

0.229

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.72

1.420

-0.062, 5.51

0.081

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.155

2.194

-4.46, 4.15

0.945

Pseudo R square

0.053

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.4

0.765

9.86, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.419

1.070

-1.68, 2.52

0.697

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

1.041

-1.02, 3.06

0.344

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.42

1.603

-4.56, 1.72

0.392

Pseudo R square

0.009

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.7

1.141

13.4, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.03

1.595

-4.16, 2.10

0.522

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.23

1.627

-0.960, 5.42

0.188

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.74

2.505

-8.65, 1.17

0.153

Pseudo R square

0.050

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

22.0

1.360

19.3, 24.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.698

1.902

-3.03, 4.42

0.715

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.75

1.906

-1.99, 5.49

0.372

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.05

2.935

-8.81, 2.70

0.313

Pseudo R square

0.010

resilisnce

(Intercept)

17.1

0.965

15.2, 19.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.049

1.350

-2.70, 2.60

0.971

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.967

1.416

-1.81, 3.74

0.506

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.206

2.180

-4.48, 4.07

0.926

Pseudo R square

0.007

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.5

0.682

12.2, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.413

0.953

-1.46, 2.28

0.667

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.361

0.755

-1.84, 1.12

0.641

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.69

1.166

-0.591, 3.98

0.170

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

17.0

0.619

15.7, 18.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.437

0.865

-1.26, 2.13

0.616

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.34

0.775

-0.181, 2.86

0.104

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.12

1.195

-3.46, 1.22

0.362

Pseudo R square

0.021

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.673

11.0, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.59

0.941

-0.252, 3.44

0.097

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.43

0.753

-0.042, 2.91

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.11

1.162

-3.39, 1.17

0.358

Pseudo R square

0.060

els

(Intercept)

29.3

1.161

27.0, 31.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.03

1.623

-1.15, 5.21

0.217

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.81

1.391

0.087, 5.54

0.061

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.25

2.146

-6.46, 1.96

0.311

Pseudo R square

0.042

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.2

2.134

23.0, 31.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.095

2.985

-5.95, 5.76

0.975

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.63

1.702

-1.71, 4.97

0.359

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.56

2.633

-3.60, 6.72

0.565

Pseudo R square

0.010

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

1.006

11.9, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.874

1.407

-1.88, 3.63

0.538

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.46

1.073

-0.642, 3.56

0.200

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.01

1.657

-4.26, 2.24

0.553

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.5

0.754

15.0, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.719

1.054

-1.35, 2.79

0.498

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.890

0.959

-0.990, 2.77

0.369

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.004

1.479

-2.89, 2.90

0.998

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs

(Intercept)

30.4

1.621

27.2, 33.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.59

2.267

-2.85, 6.04

0.486

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.34

1.831

-1.25, 5.93

0.225

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.991

2.826

-6.53, 4.55

0.732

Pseudo R square

0.018

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.257

12.2, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.379

0.359

-1.08, 0.324

0.296

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.848

0.476

-0.086, 1.78

0.100

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.847

0.727

-2.27, 0.578

0.264

Pseudo R square

0.097

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.3

0.723

13.9, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.012

1.011

-1.99, 1.97

0.991

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.657

1.279

-1.85, 3.16

0.612

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.13

1.957

-5.97, 1.70

0.285

Pseudo R square

0.021

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.1

0.829

12.5, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.789

1.160

-3.06, 1.49

0.500

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.06

1.194

-1.28, 3.40

0.389

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.29

1.837

-4.90, 2.31

0.492

Pseudo R square

0.026

mlq

(Intercept)

29.4

1.424

26.6, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.800

1.992

-4.70, 3.10

0.689

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.78

2.286

-2.70, 6.26

0.445

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.47

3.510

-10.4, 3.41

0.334

Pseudo R square

0.024

empower

(Intercept)

20.3

0.888

18.5, 22.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.403

1.242

-2.84, 2.03

0.747

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.534

0.823

-1.08, 2.15

0.529

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.516

1.272

-3.01, 1.98

0.692

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

15.1

0.566

14.0, 16.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.310

0.792

-1.86, 1.24

0.697

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.203

0.858

-1.88, 1.48

0.816

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.677

1.319

-1.91, 3.26

0.613

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.9

0.645

10.6, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.34

0.903

-3.11, 0.425

0.143

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.833

0.791

-2.38, 0.717

0.309

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.242

1.220

-2.15, 2.63

0.845

Pseudo R square

0.051

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.86

0.876

8.15, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.777

1.225

-3.18, 1.62

0.529

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.306

0.668

-1.62, 1.00

0.656

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.712

1.033

-2.74, 1.31

0.505

Pseudo R square

0.017

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.0

0.914

8.21, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.09

1.278

-3.59, 1.42

0.400

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.28

0.952

-3.15, 0.584

0.203

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.766

1.470

-2.12, 3.65

0.612

Pseudo R square

0.020

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.41

0.862

5.72, 9.10

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.808

1.205

-1.55, 3.17

0.506

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.25

0.806

-0.334, 2.83

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.37

1.247

-4.81, 0.077

0.082

Pseudo R square

0.016

sss

(Intercept)

27.3

2.469

22.4, 32.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.06

3.453

-7.82, 5.71

0.761

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.466

1.887

-4.16, 3.23

0.809

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.00

2.919

-7.72, 3.72

0.508

Pseudo R square

0.007

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.41 (95% CI [2.91, 3.91], t(51) = 13.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.76], t(51) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.60], t(51) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.87, 0.91], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.50 (95% CI [17.40, 19.60], t(51) = 33.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.38], t(51) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.01], t(51) = -0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.45], t(51) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.41 (95% CI [28.46, 32.36], t(51) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.49], t(51) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.94], t(51) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.15], t(51) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.52, 13.21], t(51) = 28.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.08], t(51) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.59], t(51) = -0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.08], t(51) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.64 (95% CI [16.36, 18.91], t(51) = 27.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.88], t(51) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.41], t(51) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.10], t(51) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.04, 14.59], t(51) = 20.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.16], t(51) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.93], t(51) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.76], t(51) = 0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.99, 11.91], t(51) = 22.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-2.82, -0.13], t(51) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.75, 0.52], t(51) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-0.94, 4.06], t(51) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [24.11, 32.71], t(51) = 12.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-4.12, 7.91], t(51) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-4.59, 2.39], t(51) = -0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-3.44, 7.34], t(51) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.36 (95% CI [21.29, 25.44], t(51) = 22.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.98], t(51) = -0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-2.98, -0.71], t(51) = -3.19, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.59, -0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.65], t(51) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.55, 29.36], t(51) = 21.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-4.54, 2.20], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.55, 0.53], t(51) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.07], t(51) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.86])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.95 (95% CI [17.21, 22.70], t(51) = 14.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.39, 95% CI [-1.45, 6.24], t(51) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.94])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.72, 95% CI [-0.06, 5.51], t(51) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-9.40e-03, 0.83])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-4.46, 4.15], t(51) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.36 (95% CI [9.86, 12.86], t(51) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.52], t(51) = 0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.06], t(51) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.87])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-4.56, 1.72], t(51) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.45, 17.92], t(51) = 13.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-4.16, 2.10], t(51) = -0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-0.96, 5.42], t(51) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.97])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.74, 95% CI [-8.65, 1.17], t(51) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.95 (95% CI [19.29, 24.62], t(51) = 16.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-3.03, 4.42], t(51) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [-1.99, 5.49], t(51) = 0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.86])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.05, 95% CI [-8.81, 2.70], t(51) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [15.24, 19.03], t(51) = 17.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-2.70, 2.60], t(51) = -0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.81, 3.74], t(51) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.84])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-4.48, 4.07], t(51) = -0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.50 (95% CI [12.16, 14.84], t(51) = 19.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.28], t(51) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.12], t(51) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-0.59, 3.98], t(51) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.95 (95% CI [15.74, 18.17], t(51) = 27.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.13], t(51) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.86], t(51) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.46, 1.22], t(51) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.04, 13.68], t(51) = 18.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.25, 3.44], t(51) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 2.91], t(51) = 1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.89])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.39, 1.17], t(51) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.32 (95% CI [27.04, 31.59], t(51) = 25.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [-1.15, 5.21], t(51) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.81, 95% CI [0.09, 5.54], t(51) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.02, 0.97])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.25, 95% CI [-6.46, 1.96], t(51) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.18 (95% CI [23.00, 31.36], t(51) = 12.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-5.95, 5.76], t(51) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -9.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-1.71, 4.97], t(51) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-3.60, 6.72], t(51) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.91 (95% CI [11.94, 15.88], t(51) = 13.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.63], t(51) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.64, 3.56], t(51) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-4.26, 2.24], t(51) = -0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.45 (95% CI [14.98, 17.93], t(51) = 21.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.79], t(51) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.77], t(51) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.51e-03, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.90], t(51) = 2.37e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = 9.86e-04, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.36 (95% CI [27.19, 33.54], t(51) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-2.85, 6.04], t(51) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.93], t(51) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-6.53, 4.55], t(51) = -0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.73 (95% CI [12.22, 13.23], t(51) = 49.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.32], t(51) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.78], t(51) = 1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.58], t(51) = -1.16, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.27 (95% CI [13.86, 16.69], t(51) = 21.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.97], t(51) = -0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = -3.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.16], t(51) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.93])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-5.97, 1.70], t(51) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.51, 15.76], t(51) = 17.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-3.06, 1.49], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-1.28, 3.40], t(51) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.87])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-4.90, 2.31], t(51) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.41 (95% CI [26.62, 32.20], t(51) = 20.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-4.70, 3.10], t(51) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-2.70, 6.26], t(51) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.93])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.47, 95% CI [-10.35, 3.41], t(51) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.27 (95% CI [18.53, 22.01], t(51) = 22.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.03], t(51) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.15], t(51) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.01, 1.98], t(51) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [14.03, 16.25], t(51) = 26.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.24], t(51) = -0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.48], t(51) = -0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.55])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.26], t(51) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.91 (95% CI [10.64, 13.17], t(51) = 18.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.43], t(51) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.38, 0.72], t(51) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.63], t(51) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [8.15, 11.58], t(51) = 11.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.18, 1.62], t(51) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.00], t(51) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.31], t(51) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.00 (95% CI [8.21, 11.79], t(51) = 10.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-3.59, 1.42], t(51) = -0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.15, 0.58], t(51) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.65], t(51) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.41 (95% CI [5.72, 9.10], t(51) = 8.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.55, 3.17], t(51) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.83], t(51) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.69])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.37, 95% CI [-4.81, 0.08], t(51) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.27 (95% CI [22.43, 32.11], t(51) = 11.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-7.82, 5.71], t(51) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-4.16, 3.23], t(51) = -0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.00, 95% CI [-7.72, 3.72], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.494; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

184.696

190.826

-89.348

178.696

recovery_stage_a

random

6

188.226

200.484

-88.113

176.226

2.470

3

0.481

recovery_stage_b

null

3

261.227

267.356

-127.613

255.227

recovery_stage_b

random

6

266.493

278.752

-127.247

254.493

0.733

3

0.865

ras_confidence

null

3

318.216

324.346

-156.108

312.216

ras_confidence

random

6

322.417

334.675

-155.208

310.417

1.800

3

0.615

ras_willingness

null

3

235.084

241.213

-114.542

229.084

ras_willingness

random

6

240.267

252.526

-114.134

228.267

0.817

3

0.846

ras_goal

null

3

278.083

284.212

-136.041

272.083

ras_goal

random

6

282.896

295.154

-135.448

270.896

1.187

3

0.756

ras_reliance

null

3

268.065

274.194

-131.032

262.065

ras_reliance

random

6

271.667

283.926

-129.834

259.667

2.397

3

0.494

ras_domination

null

3

261.462

267.591

-127.731

255.462

ras_domination

random

6

261.943

274.201

-124.971

249.943

5.519

3

0.137

symptom

null

3

411.460

417.590

-202.730

405.460

symptom

random

6

416.347

428.605

-202.173

404.347

1.113

3

0.774

slof_work

null

3

326.864

332.993

-160.432

320.864

slof_work

random

6

323.929

336.187

-155.964

311.929

8.935

3

0.030

slof_relationship

null

3

347.843

353.972

-170.921

341.843

slof_relationship

random

6

351.280

363.538

-169.640

339.280

2.563

3

0.464

satisfaction

null

3

371.718

377.847

-182.859

365.718

satisfaction

random

6

370.439

382.698

-179.220

358.439

7.279

3

0.064

mhc_emotional

null

3

303.312

309.441

-148.656

297.312

mhc_emotional

random

6

308.090

320.348

-148.045

296.090

1.222

3

0.748

mhc_social

null

3

352.491

358.620

-173.245

346.491

mhc_social

random

6

354.705

366.963

-171.352

342.705

3.786

3

0.285

mhc_psychological

null

3

369.643

375.772

-181.821

363.643

mhc_psychological

random

6

374.344

386.602

-181.172

362.344

1.299

3

0.729

resilisnce

null

3

330.974

337.103

-162.487

324.974

resilisnce

random

6

336.285

348.543

-162.142

324.285

0.689

3

0.876

social_provision

null

3

287.436

293.566

-140.718

281.436

social_provision

random

6

290.331

302.590

-139.166

278.331

3.105

3

0.376

els_value_living

null

3

279.311

285.441

-136.656

273.311

els_value_living

random

6

282.073

294.331

-135.036

270.073

3.239

3

0.356

els_life_fulfill

null

3

289.250

295.379

-141.625

283.250

els_life_fulfill

random

6

289.084

301.342

-138.542

277.084

6.166

3

0.104

els

null

3

352.170

358.299

-173.085

346.170

els

random

6

352.805

365.064

-170.403

340.805

5.365

3

0.147

social_connect

null

3

410.088

416.217

-202.044

404.088

social_connect

random

6

412.776

425.034

-200.388

400.776

3.312

3

0.346

shs_agency

null

3

330.191

336.320

-162.095

324.191

shs_agency

random

6

333.808

346.066

-160.904

321.808

2.383

3

0.497

shs_pathway

null

3

301.021

307.151

-147.511

295.021

shs_pathway

random

6

304.956

317.214

-146.478

292.956

2.066

3

0.559

shs

null

3

386.081

392.210

-190.040

380.081

shs

random

6

389.518

401.776

-188.759

377.518

2.563

3

0.464

esteem

null

3

189.897

196.026

-91.948

183.897

esteem

random

6

189.806

202.064

-88.903

177.806

6.091

3

0.107

mlq_search

null

3

302.511

308.641

-148.256

296.511

mlq_search

random

6

307.066

319.325

-147.533

295.066

1.445

3

0.695

mlq_presence

null

3

314.214

320.343

-154.107

308.214

mlq_presence

random

6

318.572

330.831

-153.286

306.572

1.642

3

0.650

mlq

null

3

378.028

384.158

-186.014

372.028

mlq

random

6

382.494

394.753

-185.247

370.494

1.534

3

0.674

empower

null

3

310.935

317.064

-152.468

304.935

empower

random

6

316.330

328.588

-152.165

304.330

0.605

3

0.895

ismi_resistance

null

3

270.607

276.736

-132.304

264.607

ismi_resistance

random

6

276.212

288.470

-132.106

264.212

0.396

3

0.941

ismi_discrimation

null

3

284.166

290.295

-139.083

278.166

ismi_discrimation

random

6

286.405

298.663

-137.203

274.405

3.761

3

0.288

sss_affective

null

3

306.725

312.854

-150.362

300.725

sss_affective

random

6

310.175

322.433

-149.088

298.175

2.550

3

0.466

sss_behavior

null

3

319.034

325.163

-156.517

313.034

sss_behavior

random

6

322.303

334.561

-155.151

310.303

2.731

3

0.435

sss_cognitive

null

3

311.148

317.277

-152.574

305.148

sss_cognitive

random

6

313.118

325.376

-150.559

301.118

4.030

3

0.258

sss

null

3

423.928

430.057

-208.964

417.928

sss

random

6

428.367

440.625

-208.183

416.367

1.562

3

0.668

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

22

3.41 ± 1.19

23

3.48 ± 1.19

0.846

-0.069

recovery_stage_a

2nd

7

4.09 ± 1.22

-0.688

5

3.68 ± 1.22

-0.205

0.567

0.413

recovery_stage_b

1st

22

18.50 ± 2.62

23

18.35 ± 2.62

0.847

0.134

recovery_stage_b

2nd

7

18.35 ± 1.97

0.128

5

18.87 ± 1.85

-0.459

0.645

-0.454

ras_confidence

1st

22

30.41 ± 4.66

23

31.17 ± 4.66

0.585

-0.584

ras_confidence

2nd

7

31.00 ± 3.03

-0.449

5

31.82 ± 2.71

-0.496

0.623

-0.631

ras_willingness

1st

22

12.36 ± 2.02

23

12.26 ± 2.02

0.865

0.100

ras_willingness

2nd

7

11.92 ± 1.63

0.430

5

12.30 ± 1.56

-0.043

0.682

-0.373

ras_goal

1st

22

17.64 ± 3.05

23

17.74 ± 3.05

0.910

-0.081

ras_goal

2nd

7

17.75 ± 2.25

-0.089

5

16.95 ± 2.11

0.618

0.533

0.627

ras_reliance

1st

22

13.32 ± 3.05

23

13.70 ± 3.05

0.681

-0.491

ras_reliance

2nd

7

13.45 ± 1.94

-0.171

5

14.35 ± 1.71

-0.855

0.399

-1.174

ras_domination

1st

22

10.95 ± 2.30

23

9.48 ± 2.30

0.036

0.850

ras_domination

2nd

7

9.84 ± 2.25

0.643

5

9.92 ± 2.24

-0.254

0.950

-0.047

symptom

1st

22

28.41 ± 10.30

23

30.30 ± 10.30

0.540

-0.559

symptom

2nd

7

27.31 ± 7.00

0.324

5

31.15 ± 6.37

-0.250

0.328

-1.133

slof_work

1st

22

23.36 ± 4.97

23

22.43 ± 4.97

0.534

0.851

slof_work

2nd

7

21.52 ± 3.08

1.691

5

21.48 ± 2.68

0.874

0.982

0.034

slof_relationship

1st

22

26.95 ± 5.76

23

25.78 ± 5.76

0.499

0.588

slof_relationship

2nd

7

25.44 ± 3.98

0.758

5

26.18 ± 3.64

-0.202

0.740

-0.372

satisfaction

1st

22

19.95 ± 6.57

23

22.35 ± 6.57

0.229

-0.874

satisfaction

2nd

7

22.68 ± 4.85

-0.993

5

24.91 ± 4.54

-0.937

0.418

-0.817

mhc_emotional

1st

22

11.36 ± 3.59

23

11.78 ± 3.59

0.697

-0.203

mhc_emotional

2nd

7

12.39 ± 3.06

-0.494

5

11.39 ± 2.98

0.192

0.575

0.483

mhc_social

1st

22

15.68 ± 5.35

23

14.65 ± 5.35

0.522

0.316

mhc_social

2nd

7

17.91 ± 4.69

-0.684

5

13.14 ± 4.59

0.463

0.088

1.464

mhc_psychological

1st

22

21.95 ± 6.38

23

22.65 ± 6.38

0.715

-0.183

mhc_psychological

2nd

7

23.70 ± 5.54

-0.460

5

21.35 ± 5.40

0.343

0.467

0.619

resilisnce

1st

22

17.14 ± 4.53

23

17.09 ± 4.53

0.971

0.017

resilisnce

2nd

7

18.10 ± 4.04

-0.339

5

17.85 ± 3.96

-0.267

0.914

0.089

social_provision

1st

22

13.50 ± 3.20

23

13.91 ± 3.20

0.667

-0.282

social_provision

2nd

7

13.14 ± 2.45

0.246

5

15.25 ± 2.32

-0.910

0.139

-1.437

els_value_living

1st

22

16.95 ± 2.90

23

17.39 ± 2.90

0.616

-0.287

els_value_living

2nd

7

18.29 ± 2.37

-0.878

5

17.61 ± 2.28

-0.142

0.617

0.449

els_life_fulfill

1st

22

12.36 ± 3.16

23

13.96 ± 3.16

0.097

-1.089

els_life_fulfill

2nd

7

13.80 ± 2.43

-0.980

5

14.28 ± 2.31

-0.221

0.729

-0.330

els

1st

22

29.32 ± 5.44

23

31.35 ± 5.44

0.218

-0.746

els

2nd

7

32.13 ± 4.34

-1.034

5

31.91 ± 4.15

-0.207

0.930

0.081

social_connect

1st

22

27.18 ± 10.01

23

27.09 ± 10.01

0.975

0.029

social_connect

2nd

7

28.81 ± 6.77

-0.502

5

30.28 ± 6.15

-0.984

0.698

-0.453

shs_agency

1st

22

13.91 ± 4.72

23

14.78 ± 4.72

0.538

-0.420

shs_agency

2nd

7

15.37 ± 3.56

-0.703

5

15.23 ± 3.35

-0.216

0.945

0.067

shs_pathway

1st

22

16.45 ± 3.54

23

17.17 ± 3.54

0.499

-0.381

shs_pathway

2nd

7

17.34 ± 2.91

-0.471

5

18.07 ± 2.80

-0.473

0.667

-0.383

shs

1st

22

30.36 ± 7.60

23

31.96 ± 7.60

0.486

-0.447

shs

2nd

7

32.70 ± 5.89

-0.657

5

33.30 ± 5.59

-0.378

0.858

-0.169

esteem

1st

22

12.73 ± 1.20

23

12.35 ± 1.20

0.295

0.369

esteem

2nd

7

13.57 ± 1.24

-0.825

5

12.35 ± 1.25

-0.001

0.099

1.193

mlq_search

1st

22

15.27 ± 3.39

23

15.26 ± 3.39

0.991

0.004

mlq_search

2nd

7

15.93 ± 3.40

-0.243

5

13.79 ± 3.40

0.545

0.288

0.793

mlq_presence

1st

22

14.14 ± 3.89

23

13.35 ± 3.89

0.500

0.330

mlq_presence

2nd

7

15.20 ± 3.43

-0.443

5

13.11 ± 3.36

0.098

0.302

0.871

mlq

1st

22

29.41 ± 6.68

23

28.61 ± 6.68

0.690

0.171

mlq

2nd

7

31.19 ± 6.30

-0.380

5

26.92 ± 6.24

0.360

0.252

0.911

empower

1st

22

20.27 ± 4.17

23

19.87 ± 4.17

0.747

0.255

empower

2nd

7

20.81 ± 2.96

-0.338

5

19.89 ± 2.74

-0.011

0.583

0.582

ismi_resistance

1st

22

15.14 ± 2.66

23

14.83 ± 2.66

0.697

0.179

ismi_resistance

2nd

7

14.93 ± 2.42

0.117

5

15.30 ± 2.38

-0.273

0.795

-0.211

ismi_discrimation

1st

22

11.91 ± 3.03

23

10.57 ± 3.03

0.143

0.866

ismi_discrimation

2nd

7

11.08 ± 2.44

0.537

5

9.97 ± 2.34

0.381

0.436

0.710

sss_affective

1st

22

9.86 ± 4.11

23

9.09 ± 4.11

0.529

0.611

sss_affective

2nd

7

9.56 ± 2.74

0.241

5

8.07 ± 2.48

0.802

0.331

1.172

sss_behavior

1st

22

10.00 ± 4.29

23

8.91 ± 4.29

0.400

0.591

sss_behavior

2nd

7

8.72 ± 3.20

0.697

5

8.40 ± 3.00

0.280

0.860

0.174

sss_cognitive

1st

22

7.41 ± 4.04

23

8.22 ± 4.04

0.506

-0.522

sss_cognitive

2nd

7

8.66 ± 2.89

-0.805

5

7.10 ± 2.67

0.723

0.342

1.007

sss

1st

22

27.27 ± 11.58

23

26.22 ± 11.58

0.761

0.294

sss

2nd

7

26.81 ± 7.73

0.130

5

23.75 ± 6.99

0.686

0.479

0.850

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(51.38) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.78)

2st

t(42.30) = -0.58, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.85 to 1.03)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(45.06) = -0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.42)

2st

t(36.28) = 0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.77)

ras_confidence

1st

t(43.82) = 0.55, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.57)

2st

t(49.29) = 0.50, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-2.53 to 4.18)

ras_willingness

1st

t(45.92) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.11)

2st

t(32.95) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.28)

ras_goal

1st

t(44.91) = 0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.93)

2st

t(37.26) = -0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-3.37 to 1.77)

ras_reliance

1st

t(43.65) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.21)

2st

t(51.45) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-1.23 to 3.03)

ras_domination

1st

t(49.90) = -2.16, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-2.85 to -0.10)

2st

t(36.41) = 0.06, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.58 to 2.74)

symptom

1st

t(44.14) = 0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-4.29 to 8.08)

2st

t(44.75) = 0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-3.98 to 11.67)

slof_work

1st

t(43.49) = -0.63, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.92 to 2.06)

2st

t(52.82) = -0.02, p = 0.982, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.39 to 3.31)

slof_relationship

1st

t(44.27) = -0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.63 to 2.29)

2st

t(43.22) = 0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-3.73 to 5.21)

satisfaction

1st

t(44.88) = 1.22, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-1.56 to 6.34)

2st

t(37.40) = 0.82, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-3.30 to 7.78)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.83) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.57)

2st

t(31.83) = -0.57, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-4.59 to 2.60)

mhc_social

1st

t(47.32) = -0.65, p = 0.522, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.24 to 2.18)

2st

t(31.84) = -1.76, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 1.46, 95% CI (-10.29 to 0.76)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(47.14) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.52)

2st

t(31.79) = -0.74, p = 0.467, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-8.87 to 4.16)

resilisnce

1st

t(47.65) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.76 to 2.67)

2st

t(32.02) = -0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-5.02 to 4.51)

social_provision

1st

t(45.32) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.33)

2st

t(34.94) = 1.51, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -1.44, 95% CI (-0.72 to 4.94)

els_value_living

1st

t(46.12) = 0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.18)

2st

t(32.56) = -0.50, p = 0.617, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.44 to 2.07)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(45.37) = 1.69, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.49)

2st

t(34.72) = 0.35, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.32 to 3.29)

els

1st

t(45.80) = 1.25, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-1.24 to 5.30)

2st

t(33.26) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-5.26 to 4.82)

social_connect

1st

t(44.10) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-6.11 to 5.92)

2st

t(45.27) = 0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-6.10 to 9.03)

shs_agency

1st

t(45.12) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.71)

2st

t(35.93) = -0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-4.22 to 3.95)

shs_pathway

1st

t(46.24) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.84)

2st

t(32.36) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.67 to 4.12)

shs

1st

t(45.43) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-2.97 to 6.16)

2st

t(34.49) = 0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-6.20 to 7.40)

esteem

1st

t(51.63) = -1.06, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.34)

2st

t(43.63) = -1.68, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.24)

mlq_search

1st

t(50.66) = -0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.02)

2st

t(39.08) = -1.08, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-6.17 to 1.88)

mlq_presence

1st

t(47.42) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.12 to 1.54)

2st

t(31.88) = -1.05, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-6.12 to 1.96)

mlq

1st

t(48.91) = -0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-4.80 to 3.20)

2st

t(33.84) = -1.16, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-11.73 to 3.19)

empower

1st

t(44.54) = -0.32, p = 0.747, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.10)

2st

t(40.25) = -0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.28 to 2.44)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(48.06) = -0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.90 to 1.28)

2st

t(32.43) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.22)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(45.96) = -1.49, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.47)

2st

t(32.87) = -0.79, p = 0.436, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-3.94 to 1.74)

sss_affective

1st

t(44.00) = -0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-3.25 to 1.69)

2st

t(46.69) = -0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-4.54 to 1.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(45.01) = -0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.66 to 1.49)

2st

t(36.59) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.98 to 3.34)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(44.57) = 0.67, p = 0.506, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.24)

2st

t(39.92) = -0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-4.83 to 1.71)

sss

1st

t(44.01) = -0.31, p = 0.761, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-8.01 to 5.90)

2st

t(46.62) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-11.66 to 5.56)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(24.02) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.38)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(11.83) = 0.74, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.06)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(10.67) = 0.79, p = 0.893, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.46)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.75) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.41)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(11.67) = -1.00, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.52 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(10.53) = 1.36, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.73)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(19.36) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.57)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(10.96) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-3.82 to 5.52)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(10.40) = -1.39, p = 0.388, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.57)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(11.07) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.14)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(11.65) = 1.51, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-1.15 to 6.28)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(13.87) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.10 to 2.31)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(14.54) = -0.77, p = 0.913, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.72 to 2.71)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(14.27) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-6.25 to 3.64)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(15.02) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.90 to 4.43)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(12.10) = 1.47, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(12.98) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.80 to 2.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(12.15) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(12.61) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.06 to 4.19)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(10.92) = 1.57, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.28 to 7.66)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(11.89) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.26)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(13.12) = 0.77, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.39)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(12.21) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.44 to 6.13)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(25.13) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.20)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(21.46) = -0.94, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.72 to 1.77)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(14.68) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.32 to 2.86)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(17.17) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-7.56 to 4.18)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(11.32) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.17)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(15.66) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(12.79) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.65 to 1.47)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(10.83) = -1.28, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.74)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(11.78) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.98)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(11.35) = -1.16, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-3.23 to 0.99)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(10.84) = -1.10, p = 0.594, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.42 to 2.49)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(21.08) = 1.41, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.70)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(11.56) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.16)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(10.58) = 0.85, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.12)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.33) = -0.82, p = 0.850, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.72)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(11.43) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.58)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(10.46) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.04)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(17.57) = -1.29, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.95 to 0.71)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(10.83) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-5.06 to 2.86)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(10.35) = -3.18, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.69, 95% CI (-3.13 to -0.56)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(10.92) = -1.43, p = 0.359, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.81)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(11.42) = 1.89, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (-0.44 to 5.88)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(13.25) = 0.96, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.33)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(13.79) = 1.33, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.37 to 5.83)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(13.58) = 0.89, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-2.47 to 5.97)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(14.18) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.10)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(11.79) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.04 to 1.32)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(12.52) = 1.69, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(11.83) = 1.87, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-0.24 to 3.11)

els

1st vs 2st

t(12.22) = 1.98, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 5.90)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(10.80) = 0.95, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.16 to 5.42)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(11.62) = 1.34, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(12.64) = 0.91, p = 0.763, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.02)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(11.88) = 1.25, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.73 to 6.40)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(21.90) = 1.70, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.88)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(19.17) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.46)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(13.91) = 0.86, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.70)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(15.88) = 0.75, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.25 to 6.82)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(11.13) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.36)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(14.69) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(12.37) = -1.03, p = 0.645, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.92)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(10.72) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(11.52) = -1.33, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.40 to 0.83)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(11.16) = 1.53, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.04)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(10.72) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-4.67 to 3.73)

Plot

Clinical significance